Lashify v. Qingdao Network Technology Co.
Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd. a/k/a Qingdao Follow The Trend Network Technology Co., Ltd. a/k/a Qingdao Mars Culture Media Co., Ltd. d/b/a UCoolMe and Vivicute Limited
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-04183
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lashify v. Qingdao Network, Judge Liman ordered both sides to say whether they want an evidentiary hearing on Lashify’s contempt motion.
Lashify, Inc. and the defendants—Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., also identified by the other names in the caption, and Vivicute Limited—must inform the court whether they want an evidentiary hearing on the contempt motion.
What happened
Lashify, Inc. asked the court to require the defendants to comply with an earlier temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and to hold them in contempt and impose sanctions.
The defendants opposed the request, arguing that Lashify relied on conjecture and evidence that could not be used in court. The court noted that federal evidence rules generally apply in contempt proceedings.
Judge Liman ordered each party to tell the court by October 2, 2025, whether it wants an evidentiary hearing. The opinion did not decide whether the defendants violated the earlier orders or whether contempt sanctions should be imposed.
The detailed version
- Lashify v. Qingdao Network Technology Co. · No. 1:25-cv-04183
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 25, 2025
Background
Lashify, Inc. moved for an order requiring the defendants to comply with a temporary restraining order entered on June 10, 2025, and a preliminary injunction entered on June 24, 2025. Lashify also asked the court to hold the defendants in contempt, meaning to impose consequences for violating a court order, and to impose contempt sanctions.
Parties’ Positions
The defendants opposed the motion. They argued, among other things, that Lashify had not provided admissible evidence sufficient to support contempt. The defendants characterized Lashify’s request for compliance and sanctions as based on conjecture and inadmissible hearsay.
Court’s Reasoning
The court stated that the Federal Rules of Evidence apply in contempt proceedings except proceedings in which the court may act summarily. It also cited authority stating that evidence that would not be admissible under federal trial-evidence rules may not be considered on a contempt motion.
Order
The court ordered each party to inform it no later than October 2, 2025, whether the party wants an evidentiary hearing on the contempt motion. The order did not decide whether the defendants violated the temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, whether the defendants should be held in contempt, or whether sanctions should be imposed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.